Earliest Ten Commandments Tablet On Auction in Beverly Hills

Jewish Press ^ | October 25th, 2016

[NorthMountain]

Symbolic logic should be a required course in high-school.

[Ezekiel]

when a man in a Jewish society stands up and tells his opponents "Amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM" ...

He is absolutely NOT trying to deny his divinity.

Jus' sayin' ...

That's what the teachers of the settled doctrines have been claiming for eons.

In case this benefits any lurkers...

The 'experts' habitually misunderstood his words. An example is right there in that passage:

John 8:

51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never *see* death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never *taste of* death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

He speaks of spiritual truths straight from God but just as they didn't get "never see death", they didn't get that "Before Abraham was I am".

Hence, they just "knew" - like they "knew" he had a devil - that he was committing blasphemy.

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Note how poorly they hear and interpret:

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

He was making a comment about Abraham's rejoicing over his day.

Answer: Before Abraham was, I am.

Well that sure did it. Couldn't have been (like the previous comment about death) a spiritual "living" truth, this guy was "surely" making himself out to be God. And regarding "I am" and dead patriarchs, the passage (Ex 3) is spoken of here:

Mark 12

26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

So there you go. If they knew God as they claimed, they would have been speaking to him on the same wavelength, meaning that they would have understood his comment about never seeing death, and therefore wouldn't have stated that Abraham and the prophets were dead.

The Messiah is who he is. Very much alive. And often he didn't bother to go into detail. Can't fault him for that. It's like the old adage, "If you have to explain it, there's no point."

It's so simple, who believes it.

History repeats right here right now. This generation is that generation.

Be kind of funny if with the next round [of his appearing], he says, "Why would I have seen Abraham? I'm not even fifty years old yet!" To which the scrupulous experts would reply, "Well who are you, then? If you were God incarnate, you would have seen him!"

Matthew 11:18-19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. 19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

This is going to be good...

***

re: a matter of one P.O.V. over another

IMO = the polite response of a gracious Jewish poster

[Ancesthntr]

I have to agree with Ezekiel, though hat’s off to NorthMountain for trying to bring some actual logic to this discussion.

Northmountain says:

“5) Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate.
6) Jesus of Nazareth was NOT God incarnate.

Like my examples (3) and (4), the real dispute captured in (5) and (6) is a simple, properly formulated, direct contradiction. One of those statements is necessarily false and the other is necessarily true. They cannot both be true; they cannot both be false. This matter cannot simply be dismissed as mere “differing points of view”. Which of them is true, which is false, is a matter of eternal importance.”

---

Ezekiel is correct - the “incarnate” part of this necessarily MUST mean that G-d can become a not G-d, i.e. of the flesh. By definition, G-d is not material, not made of matter - He is (for lack of a better term) an eternal spirit that cannot be touched or manipulated like other matter, and cannot be hurt, much less killed or murdered. That G-d can CREATE beings of flesh is beyond question (take a look in the mirror for the proof of that), but since a being of flesh can be hurt, killed or murdered, G-d cannot make Himself into a being of flesh - that would necessarily mean that G-d was mortal and vulnerable, and He is not and CAN not be either of those things.

Jesus COULD have been a prophet (many men were), but not more according to the very faith that Jesus himself practiced and believed in - the faith of his fathers, and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

Here’s a good start to understanding that Jesus was not G-d, and did not consider himself to be G-d: http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/10_reasons_jesus_not_god.htm

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “ the “incarnate” part of this necessarily MUST mean that G-d can become a not G-d, i.e. of the flesh. By definition, G-d is not material” <<

Total nonsense!

The scripture simply means that the spirit of Yehova occupied the body of Yeshua at the time of conception, thus Yeshua was a sinless human and the literal son of Yehova.

He remained “God” until the point where the spirit departed on the cross. That was necessary for him to actually die, and his death was necessary to provide the sinless blood that flowed down through the crack onto the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant in the grotto below.

Without that sinless blood on the mercy seat, the covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel could not have been renewed.
.

[Ancesthntr]

Jesus was not sinless: check out the verses cited in Item #5 of the following article...http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/10_reasons_jesus_not_god.htm

Additionally, looking at Item #8 of the same article, Jesus worshipped G-d (as any reasonably righteous Jew since the time of Abraham would have or currently does). So you’re telling me that he worshipped himself? Really, was he that much of a narcissist (and, NO, I am not claiming that - I am just shredding your “logic”).

FYI, every single human being, no matter how good or evil, has a spirit, a soul, that is a literal part of G-d. Yet ALL that have ever walked the Earth, or who ever WILL walk the Earth, were/are/will be sinners - NONE are perfect.

That Jesus himself denied the divinity that some of his followers attributed to him should be enough for you to understand the error of this particular belief of yours. Try worshipping the G-d that Jesus himself worshipped - the One and ONLY G-d, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, Who always was and Who always will be, Who is all-knowing, all-powerful and present everywhere.

[Ezekiel]

Jesus COULD have been a prophet (many men were), but not more according to the very faith that Jesus himself practiced and believed in - the faith of his fathers, and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, David and Solomon. I don’t know what is so hard to understand about that.

Simple meanings - bad; convoluted explanations - good. Truth doesn't sell, but lies fly right off the shelves.

Lashon hara is eaten right up.

Funny thing about axioms and patterns. Mashiach as Moses (soul of the soul), souls returning [in other physical bodies] throughout history for the purposes of rectification...

What of the one who's been accused of blasphemy (lashon hora, saying "he claimed to be God") for almost 2000 years? That's some serious damage to a reputation there.

That problem would certainly need to be rectified (understatement). I expect he'd return in like manner as the pattern goes. And rejected (by Christians) because he doesn't claim to be God. Never mind that the most humble man on the face of the earth knows he is not any type of god. It is axiomatic.

Even better (as far as Divine plots tend to go) for him to come up among those who claim to know who he is ("God incarnate", "Jesus of Nazareth"), but there he is and noone recognizes him.

Pass the popcorn. :)

[editor-surveyor]

.
You’re on drugs or something

Yeshua was God, he had no need nor ability to worship anything.

You also seem to be a Hindu, huh? Nobody is “part god.”

Your lies in your posts may cost you if you fail to repent.
Yeshua did not deny his divinity.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
There’ll be no need to recognize Yeshua; only a need for him to recognize us.

When he comes on Yom Teruah for his elect, he will be the one doing the recognizing.

Those he doesn’t recognize will be gnashing their teeth, and cursing him.

No matter! They will have little time for anything but dodging the bowl judgements that will commence after he has claimed his bride.
.

[Ezekiel]

There’ll be no need to recognize Yeshua; only a need for him to recognize us.

When he comes on Yom Teruah for his elect, he will be the one doing the recognizing.

Eh, who needs discernment. Surely the Jewish guy with the cool Hebrew name and who claims to be God will be the one to want attention from. :-\

[editor-surveyor]

.
Let Matthew 7:21 et seq be the guide.

If he doesn’t know you, you are lost.

The same basic statement is made in numerous places in the scriptures and messianic writings.

Discernment is mostly dependent on the willingness to understand.
.

[Yaelle]

Not a lie per se, but religions have different calendars. Judaism had already started counting some 3000 years earlier. It is respect for Christianity to use the Christian calendar, but give the dates have a secular name. Dates don’t need to be religious. I’m curious what a Christian scientist does when he discusses those dates. Not sure.

But it isn’t a lie to speak about common era, it’s not anti-Christian. It’s just neutral.

[Ancesthntr]

You’re on drugs or something

Nope, never tried them, never even inhaled. Stone, cold sober.

Yeshua was God, he had no need nor ability to worship anything.

Here, from the text you revere as your bible (be aware that I don't, but I'm using what YOU apparently believe in to show you the error of your interpretation). [Note: emphasis added by me, so that your attention will be drawn to key portions of the text]:

Matthew 26:36-44

"36. Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray."

37. He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled.

38. Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

39. Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

40. Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter.

41. "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

42. He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

43. When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy.

44. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing."

That's 3 times that my cousin, the carpenter, prayed, just in that one passage, and I'm quite sure that there are other passages that tell about similar incidents. Did he pray to himself? Nope, it is pretty clear from the text OF THE DOCUMENT YOU REVERE AS THE BIBLE that he prayed to G-d. That means that he, himself, not only WASN'T G-d, but that he, himself RECOGNIZED THAT HE WASN'T G-D. Those parts about "Yet not as I will, but as you will." and "...may your will be done." are an explicit recognition of G-d as a Superior Being (actually as THE Superior Being). The One and Only G-d prays to no one and no thing, period, because no one and no thing are superior to Him.

That part about ""My soul is overwhelmed..." shows that he thought that he had a soul (and, as a human being, he did). Does G-d have a soul? Nope - those he provides to us humans. Anyway, what kind of a Supreme Being would have its soul "overwhelmed?" I don't pretend to know more than a tiny fraction of what there is to know about G-d, but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't get "overwhelmed," that He is not the sort who can't cope with things like that.

Nope, my cousin wasn't G-d, and even though he clearly wasn't perfect, at least he recognized his limitations, and his place - as a human being with flaws, needs, desires, etc. who NEEDED to pray to the ACTUAL and ONLY G-d, Creator and Master of the Universe.

You also seem to be a Hindu, huh? Nobody is “part god.”

No, not Hindu - Jewish...and I never said that any person is "part god." Read what I said - each of us has a soul, and that soul is from G-d, it is the spark of divinity in all of us. It is that which theoretically and potentially allows us to be higher than the angels - because they have no choice but to do as G-d instructs them, while we have free will. That free will allows us to do evil, but also to resist it and do good. When we do enough good (and only a very, very few in each generation can live up to this standard), we are better than angels.

No, there is no person who was, is, or ever will be "part god" like some kind of pagan demi-god. That's utter BS.

Your lies in your posts may cost you if you fail to repent. Yeshua did not deny his divinity.

By the very act of praying to "the Father" (i.e. G-d), and of admitting that he had a soul, he denied that he was G-d. Besides, he was born to a woman. He was at one point in his life a helpless baby who needed to be fed by others, who crapped and puked all over the place, who couldn't so much as walk for about a year, etc., etc., etc. - just like all the rest of us mere humans...because that is exactly what he was. Doesn't sound much like G-d to me, as G-d had no beginning (my cousin the carpenter was born), has no end (where's my cousin now?), doesn't get sick, doesn't eat, doesn't go to the bathroom, is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc., etc.

Face it, you're wrong about the divinity of my very distant cousin. He was just a man. Now, he may have been a very unusual man, someone who wanted people to be better, to be less sinful, to seek salvation, etc., etc. - and for that he may deserve some special honor among other humans as a great teacher (like Moses, for example). BUT HE WAS A MAN!

[Ezekiel]

Thanks for that example. There are so many.

Matthew 19:16-17 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

On and on. It would be funny if it weren't so messed up. :-/

The NT is filled with plain texts that have been misinterpreted badly since forever. That the Hebrew texts have been creatively misused to push certain dogmas [like the trinity] says that the people doing that should not be trusted with Greek, or with English for that matter.

Take that "Nazarene prophecy", for one. It's like Emily Litella got a hold of that one and ran with it, droning on about netzers and shoots.

Jews: There's no prophecy about the Messiah being called a Nazarene (Nazarite, nazir).

Correct. And that goes for the passage in the NT as well. Because while Jesus was raised in Nazareth, the verses are about Joseph HaTzaddik. It's a mashal wherein the parable is also the literal meaning because Joseph, the father of Jesus, was called "a just man" aka tzaddik. It does roll over to Jesus in a sense that the child had a target on his back, and was brought in then taken out of Egypt.

Dreams, going down to Egypt, coming up from Egypt, settling in the north (kever Yosef)... it jumps right out. Or not. Young child, nascent Israel. Joseph... Rachel. The entire chapter is like that, but to stick with this one basic (in the plain text) issue of who is the Nazarene:

Matthew 2

13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he [Joseph] arose, he [Joseph] took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

19 But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child's life.
21 And he [Joseph] arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.
[cf. "pakad yifkod"]
22 But when he [Joseph] heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he [Joseph] was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he [Joseph] turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
23 And he [Joseph] came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He [Joseph!] shall be called a Nazarene*.

*nazir, one separated

Prophets, plural [whom no one can locate]:

Genesis 49:26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate [nazir] from his brethren.

Deuteronomy 33:16 And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated [nazir] from his brethren.

(I don't dismiss word play possibilities with netzer/shoot, but the interpreters miss the clear trail back to the antecedent.) Irony overload.

antecedent:

n. 1. a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another.
adj. 1. preceding in time or order; previous or preexisting.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Another way to come at Nazarene, is that the residents of Nazareth were known to be unsavory people. It would be a way of saying Jesus came from the wrong side of the tracks, which is implied in the classic Isaiah 53 prophecy.

[HiTech RedNeck]

About the Commandments themselves, this was a test that no people could pass, because they were fallen.

There was only one other way, and that was to be forgiven and entered into an ironclad promise of purification which would conclude in a place in which some of the Commandments would not even apply any more (e.g. no marriage so no context for sexual relations as we know them).

If anyone says now that he or she is keeping all the Commandments... that person is not telling the truth.

[Salvation]

Seems strange that the Vatican wouldn’t have it.

[Ezekiel]

Another way to come at Nazarene, is that the residents of Nazareth were known to be unsavory people. It would be a way of saying Jesus came from the wrong side of the tracks, which is implied in the classic Isaiah 53 prophecy.

Hmmm, the Messiah coming from "the wrong side of the tracks"... shades of David's "sketchy" lineage.

Yes indeed, the wrong side of the tracks. Or, why David had to come from the most reviled nation, the trash heap as it were:

http://habayitah.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-david-must-come-from-most-reviled.html

[HiTech RedNeck]

Jesus with His gospel is about cleaning the unclean, who could not clean themselves, by His supernatural power.

To illustrate that, a gaggle of unsavory people (sadly, even today a whole lot of non religious Jews turn their back on their own people’s self interest) seems to make a lot of sense in the story. And to look at church history certainly gives Christendom no reason to brag on itself.

I currently have colleagues about half of whom are pagans (from India). Frankly, decent pagans often outdo Jewish and Christian society in how they treat other people. Put that in our theological pipe and smoke it... of course I certainly wish to show them who the God is that bestowed these capabilities upon them.

No, the gospel is a sin to salvation story. HORRIBLE sin to salvation story. There is no need to fear how bad you have been when you come to Christ, no need to come with a given degree of perfection to bring to His table except His own promise.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Praying to his Father is not worshiping his father.

He made it plain that he and the Father were one.

He Also said “if you have seen me you have seen the Father.”

He was our Elohim made flesh.

Save your blasphemy for the idiots that share your madness.
.

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “About the Commandments themselves, this was a test that no people could pass, because they were fallen.” <<

No one could pass without Faith.

Paul made it plain in Hebrews ch 3 and 4 that it was the lack of belief that cost those lost in the desert their salvation. He stated plainly that the gospel he preached was the same that was delivered to Moses at Sinai.
.